Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[1beleevr]

:thumbsup:Hi, prieldedi: Nice to hear from you again! My bad; I do actually go to a priest, High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek:thumbsup:You may know of whom I speak; He has been called the Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, the Rose of Sharon, but most of all, I call Him friend, even though I revere Him as my Saviour! As usual, you have outdone yourself in providing scriptural evidence to back up your claims! Unfortunately, all but three of them occur in the OT, under the old covenant. In Hebrews 4:16, we are assured that WE can come boldly into the throneroom, because of Christ’s finished work on the Cross! The final three verses are open to interpretation, and we could add 1John 1:9, which gives the comfort of knowing that we can “confess our sins unto Him, and He is faithful to forgive us of all unrighteousness!” James 5:16 encourages us to "confess our sins one to another. There is no mention of a priest, deacon, or elder; yet some use this passage as justification for confessing to a priest. Jesus said many things, most written, but many things that were not. He did not tell us to go to a priest, but He did tell us to forgive others, as we have been forgiven!

 

[tweetymom]

robbys: This is a novel approach to the question of,“Did Mary have other children?” Hmmm, let’s see; well if I knew for certain that this child was the Lord Jesus, I would be totally in awe, and overwhelmed, by it all And all of the scenarios that people have presented to “prove” that Mary was a perpetual virgin, are quite interesting, yet inconclusive. I myself do not have a concrete answer of proof, and have never aserted that she did or did not have other children; merely floating the possibility, that as a married couple, they MAY have had sexual relations. As far as we know, Joseph was with Mary for at least 12 years. That’s a long time to be with someone without consummating a marriage(Matthew 1:25)

You stole my thunder lol Like you I don’t know if She had other children But how does anyone explain Matthew 1: 25. Does it mean he said Hi I am glad to meet you or what

 

[Arandur]

You stole my thunder lol Like you I don’t know if She had other children But how does anyone explain Matthew 1: 25. Does it mean he said Hi I am glad to meet you or what

Matt 1:25 has been explained many times before. “Until” does not mean what you think it does. Look at its use elsewhere in Scripture and it is not often used to mean “up to this point, afterwards this happened.” Others have referenced the Scriptures pointed this out, likely on this thread.

Interesting top google result for a search for Matthew 1:25 explains this from an Eastern Orthodox perspective:
orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm

Give it a read. I’d say it’s a pretty good and conclusive treatment of the subject in just a short span.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: And, Matthew 1:25, will continue to be debated, explained, and interpreted, long after we’re dead and gone And there are many words, besides UNTIL, that don’t always mean the same thing And how many perspectives are there, anyway? If I told my daughter that she couldn’t have dessert UNTIL she finished her dinner, does that mean she gets to have dessert, before she finishes her dinner, or after? Every Bible I have read with the exception of the catholic Bible, indicate that there may have been marital relations. But we really won’t know for sure, UNTIL God reveals the answers to US!

 

[Arandur]

Just check out the reference, 1Beleevr. “Until” is an English word; the original was Greek.

Your “every Bible” is hardly an assurance. For one, truth is not subject to majority vote–and if it were, that the vast majority of Christians are Catholic and Orthodox and have maintained these positions for nearly 2000 years consistently would certainly hold vastly more weight than modern innovators of recent challenges to these beliefs. For another, the plurality of Protestant Bibles scarcely amounts to much, considering the great number of Catholic and Orthodox Bible translations through time and across cultures/languages. For yet another, the Catholics and Orthodox were the originators and keepers of the Biblical text; Protestant versions bear no such historical continuity and even come from numerous sects dissenting with one another, thus they can hardly claim more authenticity.

As for “indicating there were marital relations,” where? While I’m not certain on the Orthodox position that the Jewish betrothal remained and no marriage occurred (Catholics have held either betrothal or marital views without problem), the article I referenced does appear to describe in detail how the Bible never once tells us that Joseph and Mary ever even got married, only that betrothal (a custom that did not have to end in marriage) took place. So to claim marital relations is proclaimed by the Bible is a double leap.

Given history, the Text and Tradition, it’s not really unclear or debatable. Moreover, when considered in terms of theological glory, truth, and virtue for believers versus scandal and confusion, it becomes even clearer that there were no other children of Mary, and Mary’s Ever-Virginity is upheld.

Just check out the link–don’t just dismiss it because you think Mt 1:25 is endlessly debatable.

 

[guanophore]

tatum ergo: I heard that the early Christians(Antioch) were called believers; they had no real affiliation! The early church was called “The Way”<which is what our church is called; The Way Felloowship! Not sure when or why the word catholic was added! And a large portion of this "congregation were Jewish.

The word “catholic” was added as as descriptor. It first appears in writing in reference to the Christian way of life in Acts 9:41. This is the term translated “the Church throughout all”. It was added because the Church spread, but her beliefs were the same “throughout all”.

 

[guanophore]

There really is no foundational data, which lends credence either way. I cannot prove that she di have other childre; but I can entertain the idea that she and Joseph consummated their union, and that PERHAPS they had other children!

Basically what you are saying here is that the faith left by the Apostles with the Church has no validity or “foundation”.

 

[guanophore]

Lest any of us “entertain” the notion, that we know what God thinks, or how He works, let us ALL agree that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are alays better than ours:thumbsup:

… there really is no way to say that she was born"sinless". .

…

It is interesting to note that you acknowledge that God can do whatever He wants, then you turn around and say that what He revealed to the Church to be true cannot be done.

you referred to Mary as God’s wife Yes, she was the physical mother of the Christ child, but not God’s wife.

Mary is referred to as the Spouse of the HS because He overshadowed her, and made her pregnant. The term “overshadow” is a reference to the ancient Hebrew practice of the man throwing his cloak over a woman, taking her into his bed.

 

[humble_maid]

Excellent! Thanks for the tip, Yada. Will check out Calvin & Luther regarding the vital need to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. If salvation depends on it, I need to know it better and embrace it more strongly. For me, belief is enhanced by knowledge and understanding.

Dido for me. Knowledge and wisdom is needed to enhance one’s faith. Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

Other than oral tradition, there is only speculation and opinions about Mary’s birth!

This is a very true statement. For persons such as yourself, who have rejected the Sacred oral Tradition of the Apostles preserved in the church, you are left only with speculations and opinions.

This is because you reject Jesus’ ability to preserve His Word in the hearts of believers, and that what was committed to the faithful is divine in origin.

Having been born of a woman, she like all others was vulnerable to sin.

Not as vulnerable as those of us who do have the sin nature. She, like Eve, did not suffer from concupiscence.’

Couldn’t God, through His awesome, Divine, power, sanctify that womb, to where sin would not touch the Christ child?

Indeed He could,and indeed He did!

Ark of the Covenant, Mary??? Were Mary’s parents"normal" parents, complete with sin natures? Is there scripture, or related history, which talks about Mary’s birth? You believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, while I and others wonder,…maybe not

Yes, Mary’s parents were “normal parents, complete with sin natures”. This is why it is called a miracle, and a mystery.

Yes, there is Sacred Oral Tradition (that which produced the entire NT) about Mary. The two main elements that the Apostles left with the Church are that she remained a virgin until she departed this life, and that she was pure.

 

[MarchOfThePigs]

many say jesus had more brothers because on the cross, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” John wasnt marys son! ?? anyone care to elaborate on these beliefs…

would love to hear from anyone! =]

Didn’t have time to read all the posts, but here is how it is: in Semetic households especially Jewish households men where head of the house, if the head of the household died, meaning the father/husband, then the next oldest son will be responsible of the well being of the woman, be it sisters or mother.

This verse from John clearly establishes Mary being ever virgin, since she had no other children, Jesus being a good Jew knew his mother must be taken care of and since he had no brothers or other siblings he gave the responsibility for his mother’s welfare to his favorite apostle John.

If Mary did have other children, meaning Jesus had siblings, then Mary would be taken care of by her other sons or her daughter’s husband, her son-in-law. Neither was the case, Mary gave birth only to Jesus and remained a virgin till the end, hence Jesus from the cross instructing John to take Mary as his own mother and be responsible for her safety and well being.

Do not be mistaken, no arguement can be made against Mary’s virginity. As a former Catholic I believed this and even now though I no longer believe in Jesus cannot argue against Mary’s virginity.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: The belief that the majority of Christians are catholic or orthodox, is a narrow minded, catholic and orthodox view Does it mean that those of us, who were saved by the blood, baptized in Christ, and follow/have followed Him for some time, are faux Christians? Are you guys that exclusionary? Good thing God isn’t, huh? And as best as I understand the Jewish marriage ritual(as explained to me by a Messianic Jew), is that the two become betrothed, but live apart for one year. During this time, they are considered married, even though a ceremony has not been performed. At the end of one year, they have a marriage ceremony, making the union official You’ll notice, that in Matthew 1:24, it says that Joseph “took unto him, his wife.” Also, in Matthew 1:20, the angel tells Joseph,“fear not to take Mary as thy wife.” Hmmmmm; sounds like this couple was married to me! And we have discussed and debated the UNTIL issue until we are blue in the face, and are at a standstill; both sides still believing in their idea. And I guess you’re saying that we have to accept “your” version of everything, based on someone’s interpretation of what the apostles taught

 

[tweetymom]

arandur: The belief that the majority of Christians are catholic or orthodox, is a narrow minded, catholic and orthodox view Does it mean that those of us, who were saved by the blood, baptized in Christ, and follow/have followed Him for some time, are faux Christians? Are you guys that exclusionary? Good thing God isn’t, huh? And as best as I understand the Jewish marriage ritual(as explained to me by a Messianic Jew), is that the two become betrothed, but live apart for one year. During this time, they are considered married, even though a ceremony has not been performed. At the end of one year, they have a marriage ceremony, making the union official You’ll notice, that in Matthew 1:24, it says that Joseph “took unto him, his wife.” Also, in Matthew 1:20, the angel tells Joseph,“fear not to take Mary as thy wife.” Hmmmmm; sounds like this couple was married to me! And we have discussed and debated the UNTIL issue until we are blue in the face, and are at a standstill; both sides still believing in their idea. And I guess you’re saying that we have to accept “your” version of everything, based on someone’s interpretation of what the apostles taught

No you are not a faux Christian. some may be exclusionary but not all.
yes it is a good thing that God loves us all not just a few. God Bless you in your journey with Christ:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

Janet1983: While I would not imply that the catholic church failed you, it is possible for churches to fail their members, in one way or another. If this were not partially true, people would not be so easily inclined to leave churches; because the church would help them to find resources for any situation that may arise. And I believe that the human passion for perfection, is countrproductive to God’s nature, in that He doesn’t hold our past against us; that would be our doing And when we feel like we are not perfect, we don’t feel worthy to be in His presence, when this is the time He wants to lift you up, and soothe your wounded ego, rebuild your fragile psyche, and mold you into the you that He has in mind. It is true that this world(including Christians) tends to get caught up in th pursuit of perfection, to the point of judging others, based on appearance, when God loves us unconditionally, just the way we are(thank you Lord!!!). I have been following many of your posts,over the past few months, and know that you got “beat up”, by a few of your former catholics. I couldn’t help praying for you, that whatever your journey, that you would find and embrace the peace of Christ, and learn daily how to follow Him more diligently and allow Him to show you the answers you desire. May He continue to direct your steps, and show you the way home. God bless you, my sister in Christ Jesus, regardless of denomination:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

tweetymom: Thank you! And may the Lord of all Creation richly bless you in your walk with Christ! Mine is going on 42 years, and has been a virtual roller coaster; with me playing the role of prodigal son, on more occasions than I care to admit(not that I’m proud of it). But God, in His infinite wisdom, love and grace does not “kick us to the curb,” when we stray(the lost sheep) and welcomes us back with open arms:thumbsup:This past weekend, while visiting a sick relative in a rehab center, I had a very pleasant meeting with a nurse, who just happenened to be a catholic. We shared our faith, witnessed to each other, and even prayed together over my uncle. It was a refreshing change from some of the catholicsI have interacted with at work and other places. On many occasions, these people’s conversations were laced with profanity and disdain for those who are not catholic But Jesus told us that we would encounter this type of resistance, when we decided to follow Him.May you and your family rest in His incredible peace, and may His love cover you all:thumbsup:

 

[tweetymom]

tweetymom: Thank you! And may the Lord of all Creation richly bless you in your walk with Christ! Mine is going on 42 years, and has been a virtual roller coaster; with me playing the role of prodigal son, on more occasions than I care to admit(not that I’m proud of it). But God, in His infinite wisdom, love and grace does not “kick us to the curb,” when we stray(the lost sheep) and welcomes us back with open arms:thumbsup:This past weekend, while visiting a sick relative in a rehab center, I had a very pleasant meeting with aat nurse, who just happenened to be a catholic. We shared our faith, witnessed to each other, and even prayed together over my uncle. It was a refreshing change from some of the catholicsI have interacted with at work and other places. On many occasions, these people’s conversations were laced with profanity and disdain for those who are not catholic But Jesus told us that we would encounter this type of resistance, when we decided to follow Him.May you and your family rest in His incredible peace, and may His love cover you all:thumbsup:

thank you. I too have be same spiritual rollercoaste that you have been on. I was raised a Catholic and nothing for much of my childhood.Then at 35years of age I joined the Baptist Church and I am eternally grateful for my years spent there. I came back to the CC about 8 years aga for a lot of reasons none of them because I thought where I was at was a wrong.Church Jesus is in my heart and I hope and pray that I am never critical of others religons. And yes you are right I have met a lot of resistance from some here as to my belief. But Jesus told us to expect this. So we should thank Him for this:thumbsup:

 

[Arandur]

arandur: The belief that the majority of Christians are catholic or orthodox, is a narrow minded, catholic and orthodox view Does it mean that those of us, who were saved by the blood, baptized in Christ, and follow/have followed Him for some time, are faux Christians? Are you guys that exclusionary? Good thing God isn’t, huh?

Boy, you really misunderstood my plain words. I hope you were not led to this quite erroneous conclusion by your prejudices against Catholics. If you go back and read more carefully, you will find that:

1. The very words “vast majority of Christians” contains in it the inherent assumption that there are other Christians. All who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Christians, though they may be in various states of communion with God due to how sinful they are or what truth they accept or reject. If you are “baptized in Christ,” I presume you are Christian and seeking to be a better one. This is well, but you would do better to come Home within the Universal Church of Christ and receive Him at His feast table.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: I have never implied that anyone of any faith was not a Christian Neither do I quantify the depth of their committment to Christ, based on said faith Every single human being is never too far from the love of God; from the marvelous gift of salvation, and eternal life.And I realize that certain denominations are interested in numbers(75%), etc., but my faith is not framed by a denomination, whether it be catholic, Baptist, Msthodist, or any other organized religion, hence the byline:non-denominational! And I don’t want to be a better Christian, but rather a more complete Christian. More humble, more eager servant(ministries such as feeding homeless, witnessing, street evangelizing, etc), and also,deeper prayer life:thumbsup: You have to admit that using the word, VAST, does send a message of superiority to some; not myself, because if you’re a Christian, it doesn’t matter to me where you worship! I have no doubt, that you yuorself are a dedicated and faithful follower of Christ. I have attended organized religious churches during my 42 years as a believer, but found too much human influence when it came to matters of GodSo, thank you for your concern, but I would rather stay where I am, rather than be a “cafeteria catholic!”

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: BTW, I read the link you sent from wikipedia, and you know what? Numbers aren’t so important, unless we’re talking about the number of souls that have been won for Christ. And mentioning different versions of the Bible, is not intended to imply anti-catholicism; it is to point out differences in interpretation. I have never heard of what is it, tobit, or the maccabees(actually, I recently read about them), or other books which are included in the “Good News Bible!”. And you haven’t addressed my response, as to whether Mary and Joseph were married I got this information about the Jewish wedding rites, right from the horse’s mout, so to speak:thumbsup:

 

[Arandur]

And you haven’t addressed my response, as to whether Mary and Joseph were married I got this information about the Jewish wedding rites, right from the horse’s mout, so to speak:thumbsup:

Yes I did, in reference to the Orthodox articles on the subject. They go in depth into the original languages. One of the things they explain is that the term translating in English in some Bibles as “wife” actually just means “woman” and is commonly used as such in the contemporary language. They also explain the nature of ancient Jewish wedding arrangements and the practice of continued betrothals to provide for a woman. They operate on the assumption (explained in other articles they link and common in Mariology) that Mary was a Temple Virgin in Jerusalem. Providing a betrothed male guardian upon coming of age was essential in Jewish society at the time. But betrothal did not require marriage; indeed, Joseph may have legally had another wife, though it is believed only prior.

Regardless, as the sites explain, it doesn’t mark against Mary’s perpetual virginity whether they were married or not. They also explain how this idea of requisite consummation of marriage by the marital act is a late Protestant invention, not a part of the Jewish culture of the time (particularly evident given the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes), nor of Christian culture for most of its history.